haysmacintyre resigning as auditors

by Doug D 09.03.17 18:53

Well, well, getting too hot in the kitchen?

'........no circumstances connected with our resignation which we consider should be brought to the notice of the members or creditors of the company'

So WHY are they throwing in the towel then.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sandancer** 09.03.17 19:06

Doug D wrote:Well, well, getting too hot in the kitchen?

'........no circumstances connected with our resignation which we consider should be brought to the notice of the members or creditors of the company'

So WHY are they throwing in the towel then.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Deserting the sinking ship ? shark

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.17 19:17

For anyone who hasn't seen this cracking letter:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sharonl** 09.03.17 20:13

How very telling

The Supreme Court Verdict is reported on 31st January and the auditors resign within 3 days

by Guest 09.03.17 20:15

Ooh-ah?

Maybe they've been sacked because the Fund can't afford to pay them anymore - like what they half did to Clarrie.

Or maybe they're busy behind the scenes working pro-bono.

Or maybe they've been investigated by the fraud squad for embezzlement.

Or maybe it's some boring reason like the Fund is finally being wound-down. After all there can't be anything in he way of income anymore and there's a limit to the number of good quality wristbands people want, even allowing for wear and tear.

prisoner

by suzyjohnson 09.03.17 21:25

Doug D wrote:Well, well, getting too hot in the kitchen?

'........no circumstances connected with our resignation which we consider should be brought to the notice of the members or creditors of the company'

So WHY are they throwing in the towel then.

Because until the Supreme Court's statement, they did not realise that the McCanns had not been cleared by the Portuguese investigation?

by Doug D 09.03.17 21:32

Being questioned on ‘Controversy’ FB site where it comes from.

Sorry I didn’t put up the link.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sharonl** 09.03.17 21:36

There may be a number of reasons why an auditor would resign including:

Loss of independence

Client is high risk

The client is not in a position to continue paying the audit fees

Client is not willing to make recommended adjustments to the accounts

Client and auditor are unable to agree on certain aspects of the accounts

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.17 21:40

Or maybe Operation Grange is investigating the Fraudulent Fund at last?

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.17 21:43

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **sharonl** 09.03.17 21:47

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Or maybe Operation Grange is investigating the Fraudulent Fund at last?

If the fund is fraudulent and being investigated, then the auditors may also be under investigation, for negligence at the very least . Why would Grange or anyone else warn them?

by Doug D 09.03.17 22:11

Just had a quick look at the Auditors remuneration figures from the accounts:

March 2008	£13,366
March 2009	£5,750
March 2010	£6,169
March 2011	£6,300
March 2012	£6,300
March 2013	£6,300
March 2014	£5,900
March 2015	????????
March 2016	????????

Not much of an ‘earner’, but then again I can’t imagine they were exactly onerous to produce.

March 2015 was the year they went fully ‘open & honest’ and filed bugger all under the ‘abbreviated accounts’ small company exemption get-out clauses.

Brief look at the haysmac website and came across this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not something the Fund cared too much about it seems!

by Doug D 09.03.17 22:18

Sharonl:

‘Why would Grange or anyone else warn them?’

Who says they were warned?

Three days after the Supreme Court’s verdict can’t be a coincidence and if OG have been in there asking questions, which we obviously don’t know, it could certainly have made things uncomfortable and maybe left them with no alternative but to throw in the towel.

by Doug D 09.03.17 22:36

Blimey, 1516 users on line at 22.31 on a Thursday night!

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.17 22:41

We had over 2,000 earlier on!

by Guest 09.03.17 23:53

sharonl wrote:There may be a number of reasons why an auditor would resign including:

Loss of independence

Client is high risk

The client is not in a position to continue paying the audit fees

Client is not willing to make recommended adjustments to the accounts

Client and auditor are unable to agree on certain aspects of the accounts

I'll go with that option. The decision of the Lisbon Supreme Court in favour of Goncalo Amaral will inevitably be a precursor to the Fund being bankrupted and no longer able to finance 'the search', if (or if not) required to pay substantial costs as a result of their failed litigation. What will they do..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The Limited Company (Fund) will not require the services of an auditor until presentation of the next audit report at the end of 2017. The accounts for year ending 31st March 2016 were submitted in December 2016 and later published early 2017. The resignation I think is more likely to coincide with this rather than the Lisbon Supreme Court ruling.

Something tells me the Limited Company is about to be dissolved.

If this be so and Operation Grange is wound-down when their current budged is expended, what then for the 10th anniversary? Will they continue the bravado with public appearances of a charitable nature and fund raising activities, or will they finally leave the stage and retire into obscurity. Oh no, they can't do they can they - 'cos the public won't let 'em!

by The Rooster 10.03.17 7:55

The directors of the Company have a duty to act responsibly and in light of the court finding in favour of GA they will need to act accordingly. Resignation is better for all rather than termination. Verdi has read it well in my opinion.

by Mirage 10.03.17 9:15

Does anyone know when the donation bucket appeared in PdL? I ask, because the photograph of Madeleine on the poster is from "the last photo" and from Kate's Canon camera which, I understand, was not handed into the police.

I am wondering if the appearance of this donation bucket predated the release of "the last photo".

ETA. Just had a dig around and answered my own question. The bucket evidently appeared outside the tapas bar in July.

Just a couple of observations -
Speaking at the Rothley war memorial IN MAY (Uncle) Brian Kennedy emphasised that Kate and Gerry were not asking for donations. It was just that people were wanting to give so the fund was a way they could do that. He helpfully added, when asked, that it would probably be used for legal costs!
BY JULY they are begging with a bucket!

And....
The most recent photo that would have been of critical importance to holidaymakers present at the time was held back. It was only used when all those possible witnesses had gone home and then it was used to obtain money.

by Doug D 10.03.17 11:26

Verdi:

‘The client is not in a position to continue paying the audit fees’

I'll go with that option. The decision of the Lisbon Supreme Court in favour of Goncalo Amaral will inevitably be a precursor to the Fund being bankrupted and no longer able to finance 'the search', if (or if not) required to pay substantial costs as a result of their failed litigation. What will they do..

Got to differ.

Personally, I think it far more likely that the recent accounts were the subject of some very hard bargaining from TM to get them through.

If haysmac have any type of ethical conscience, they cannot have been happy with the 'abbreviated accounts' approach over the last two years, which whilst perfectly legal, does nothing for the Fund's initially declared 'openness and transparency' policy, for what amounts to a pseudo-charity, funded to a large extent by the Great British public.

Even the earlier withdrawal of income and expenditure accounts, which dropped off in 2009 (Year 2), again whilst perfectly legal, was pretty dubious in that respect (although they were again published by Companies House with the 2014 accounts, almost certainly in error).

The apparently nonsensical transfer of £490k into 'Fixed Assets' when the search fund is technically needed 'now' rather than a few years down the line makes absolutely no accounting sense and then the Supreme Court decision was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.

Whether or not they could afford to pay what amounts to minimal audit fees is likely to be the last thing on the Fund Director’s minds.

by Mirage 10.03.17 12:44

How any auditors stayed the course this long after supposed "due diligence" was done regarding the hiring and astronomical losses incurred by Halligen is beyond my understanding. His extradition proceedings in the US took place around June/July 2010.

On 1 Sept 2010 Dr Doug Skehan and John McCann resigned from the fund.

by Liz Eagles 10.03.17 12:52

Doug D wrote:Sharonl:

‘Why would Grange or anyone else warn them?’

Who says they were warned?

Three days after the Supreme Court’s verdict can’t be a coincidence and if OG have been in there asking questions, which we obviously don’t know, it could certainly have made things uncomfortable and maybe left them with no alternative but to throw in the towel.

I know this might seem a dim question but being dim I'm not afraid to ask it.

Why does an auditor need to resign before the next year's accounts are produced for audit?

If it is standard business practice then does it mean the Limited Company will be obliged to openly engage new auditors in order to comply with some sort of company/business legislation?

As I've said it might be a dim question but it would help me and no doubt others who have an equal lack of experience in this field to understand.

by Guest 10.03.17 12:56

Doug D wrote:
Got to differ.

Personally, I think it far more likely that the recent accounts were the subject of some very hard bargaining from TM to get them through.

If haysmac have any type of ethical conscience, they cannot have been happy with the 'abbreviated accounts' approach over the last two years, which whilst perfectly legal, does nothing for the Fund's initially declared 'openness and transparency' policy, for what amounts to a pseudo-charity, funded to a large extent by the Great British public.

Role of a company audit [snipped]

Dormant company audit exemption may be claimed by a limited company that has not traded during a financial year, unless it is a banking or insurance company or an authorised person under the Financial Services Act 1986. Dormant companies do not need to appoint auditors and can deliver very basic accounts to Companies House.

I venture to suggest that the Madeleine Fund Limited company has been comparatively dormant for many a month/year - apart from unavoidable (?) annual expenditure, such as website maintenance and payment of auditors fees etc. If HaysMackintyre had any ethical conscience, they wouldn't be in a position to bargain with their client nor would they have agreed to represent such a dubious company/charity in the first place. Who selected the firm of auditors when the Limited Company was first established I wonder.

It wasn't my intention to suggest the Fund Limited Company can't afford to pay an auditors fees in the future, I was thinking maybe the auditors resignation at this particular point in time is more an indicative of the Fund Limited Company being dissolved in the very near future, rather than a direct result of the Lisbon court's decision - surely it can't be functioning as an active concern ten years down the line.

The transfer of nigh on half a million quid to 'fixed assets' could be a way of securing monies, should the McCanns be faced with a hefty bill following the ruling of the Lisbon Supreme Court.

The Fund has never been transparent, it's always been managed only just within the boundaries of law - why else would the board of directors be comprised of family, friends and sources close to the family. In my opinion, those who work in the world of finance are for the most part corruptible.

by JRP 10.03.17 13:37

A "trading" limited company needs it's accounts auditing, but a dormant company doesn't. The High Quality Wristband Company Ltd, is still trading. If you are insane enough you can still donate to Mr and Mrs Suey McSueface's charity ltd.

It would be unusual for auditors not to do a final audit before signing off, it's strange jumping ship while it's still active.

Website maintenance surely equals active?
The patient is dead... apart from some movement in his big toe.

by jeanmonroe 10.03.17 14:23

If, IF, the Find Madeleine Fund, Leaving No Stone Unturned, a private Limited company, was 'set up' with the McCan'ts, and 'others', having 'full knowledge' of exactly WHERE Madeleine 'is', 'dead or alive', since 3rd May 2007, would HaysMackintire have been fully 'complicit' in accepting the 'auditorship' of a, 'possible' fraudulent erm, 'enterprise'?

And why has it taken them 'almost' 10 YEARS for it to possibly 'dawn' on them, the 'fund' COULD be 'fraudulent'?

And HM 'possibly complicit' in removing 'monies' from the official FMF into a erm, 'special fund' that nobody has any 'information' about?

Who knows? Not me!

Just 'asking'.

by The Rooster 10.03.17 14:52

If the accountancy firm are responsible for initiating the resignation it could be because of compliance reasons and the desire to protect the downside... Protect from what???

by jeanmonroe 10.03.17 15:07

"The Fund they set up to 'search for Madeleine' is fraudulent if 'any person involved' knew Madeleine 'was dead' at the time it was set up."

by Guest 10.03.17 15:36

JRP wrote:A "trading" limited company needs it's accounts auditing, but a dormant company doesn't. The High Quality Wristband Company Ltd, is still trading. If you are insane enough you can still donate to Mr and Mrs Suey McSueface's charity ltd.

It would be unusual for auditors not to do a final audit before signing off, it's strange jumping ship while it's still active.

Website maintenance surely equals active?
The patient is dead... apart from some movement in his big toe.

I take your point - hence the bracketed question mark added.

HaysMackintyre's resignation notification is dated 3rd February 2017, not long after submission of the accounts for year ending March 2016 - realistically, they can't just abandon ship mid-stream, as you say there must be a final audit and no doubt is/will be.

Because there is a website standing (not a legal requirement for a Limited Company active or otherwise), that still features an on-line shop for good quality wristbands and a graduated donation button - does that equate to a 'trading' limited company? If there has been no movement on the income and expenditrue front through the auspices of a website - can it be said that a company is still trading?

The fund accounts for year ending March 2016 are so vague, it's impossible to determine company movement and I don't doubt any final audit report will be anymore enlightening. The fund has always operated under a cloud of suspicion.

We shall see - or not as the case maybe.

by Guest 10.03.17 15:37

The Rooster wrote:If the accountancy firm are responsible for initiating the resignation it could be because of compliance reasons and the desire to protect the downside... Protect from what???

The fraud squad?

by JRP 10.03.17 15:45

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:A "trading" limited company needs it's accounts auditing, but a dormant company doesn't. The High Quality Wristband Company Ltd, is still trading. If you are insane enough you can still donate to Mr and Mrs Suey McSueface's charity ltd.

It would be unusual for auditors not to do a final audit before signing off, it's strange jumping ship while it's still active.

Website maintenance surely equals active?
The patient is dead... apart from some movement in his big toe.
I take your point - hence the bracketed question mark added.

HaysMackintyre's resignation notification is dated 3rd February 2017, not long after submission of the accounts for year ending March 2016 - realistically, they can't just abandon ship mid-stream, as you say there must be a final audit and no doubt is/will be.

Because there is a website standing (not a legal requirement for a Limited Company active or otherwise), that still features an on-line shop for good quality wristbands and a graduated donation button - does that equate to a 'trading' limited company? If there has been no movement on the income and expenditrue front through the auspices of a website - can it be said that a company is still trading?

The fund accounts for year ending March 2016 are so vague, it's impossible to determine company movement and I don't doubt any final audit report will be anymore enlightening. The fund has always operated under a cloud of suspicion.

We shall see - or not as the case maybe.

I think the fact that there is a gateway for payment on the website means it's trading, how could they stop somebody from making a payment?
I know it's vague and I'm not a financial whizzkid but I can't see a firm of accountants resigning, wouldn't they wait until the doors were locked and the Mc's told them their services are no longer required?

Anyway, as you said - we shall see, or not see

by Guest 10.03.17 15:49

JRP wrote:
Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:A "trading" limited company needs it's accounts auditing, but a dormant company doesn't. The High Quality Wristband Company Ltd, is still trading. If you are insane enough you can still donate to Mr and Mrs Suey McSueface's charity ltd.

It would be unusual for auditors not to do a final audit before signing off, it's strange jumping ship while it's still active.

Website maintenance surely equals active?
The patient is dead... apart from some movement in his big toe.
I take your point - hence the bracketed question mark added.

HaysMackintyre's resignation notification is dated 3rd February 2017, not long after submission of the accounts for year ending March 2016 - realistically, they can't just abandon ship mid-stream, as you say there must be a final audit and no doubt is/will be.

Because there is a website standing (not a legal requirement for a Limited Company active or otherwise), that still features an on-line shop for good quality wristbands and a graduated donation button - does that equate to a 'trading' limited company? If there has been no movement on the income and expenditrue front through the auspices of a website - can it be said that a company is still trading?

The fund accounts for year ending March 2016 are so vague, it's impossible to determine company movement and I don't doubt any final audit report will be anymore enlightening. The fund has always operated under a cloud of suspicion.

We shall see - or not as the case maybe.

I think the fact that there is a gateway for payment on the website means it's trading, how could they stop somebody from making a payment?
I know it's vague and I'm not a financial whizzkid but I can't see a firm of accountants resigning, wouldn't they wait until the doors were locked and the Mc's told them their services are no longer required?

Anyway, as you said - we shall see, or not see